This statement was obviously carefully crafted, and worded in a deliberate manner, which seems to point to certain things while ruling out others without saying anything exact. What you all seem to miss is just how vague it gets when you replace epilepsy with "being treated for an illness". There'd be no reason for me to try to piece it together. Had they stated he was being treated for epilepsy and died of a seizure, that would make sense and reduce the amount of speculation. No, but the reality is people wonder when such a thing happens, and all I'm doing is trying to put the pieces together of the vague statement. I'm racist for speculating the vague 'he was being treated for an illness' could be addiction? Also don't tar me with the nonsense ideas like we are owed an exact explanation because he was famous. It's amazing to see the way it is being received. I'm the main one who has been trying to put the pieces together on why he died based on the vague statement. I'm merely pondering the meaning of what is an objectively mysterious statement. Again, I in no way want it to have been addiction- he's dead either way but worse if he suffered in that way in the run up. It's not parsing words when they are so pregnant with meaning. I think it is clear they are dancing around whatever happened, which there'd be no reason to do if it was epilepsy or something related. Further, this would be a lifelong thing, people would have known about it, and we'd likely be hearing confirmation from people that he had epilepsy, maybe use this to bring attention to epilepsy itself. If what he was being treated for was epilepsy but led to a seizure, why not just say it? They are obviously linked, so it's not like they are keeping the secret he had epilepsy by only saying he had a seizure. R197 it just seems natural if it was epilepsy they'd say so, rather than a vague statement including a seizure being involved. He looks like a nice kid so i certainly hope he wasn't struggling with addiction, but such speculation is not baseless. Not sure what else would fit the parameters we are given. I could be totally wrong but I don't think, based on the evidence we have, what I'm saying is untoward or all that far off. He's a child star and so naturally they need to be very careful in disclosing something like addiction due to his audience, and they are clearly being careful here. Also addiction is a disease and so cannot be ruled out, unlike what some are saying here when they say disease.īased on the evidence, I feel it is most likely a case of addiction-related death being masked with unspecific terminology, hints of seizures and having a disease. For which he was being treated= implies it was a disease which you can be treated for rather than a congenital one. Lack of specificity= (if it was epilepsy they'd say so, sounds like something is not being said here) -Ongoing medical condition= this was something they knew he had, which eliminates speculation about sudden aneurysms, undetected heart problems, or sudden epileptic death disorder. They said he had a seizure from an ongoing medical condition for which he was being treated. Just based on the family's statement there are certain clues and am just extrapolating from there.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |